So much drama over why an order issued by one court didn't immediately appear on a different court's docket! Don't tell "Scoop" Rondeau, but:

► Show Spoiler

THEY'RE DIFFERENT COURTS. A human at D. Utah had to input the 10th Cir.'s order. Clerks are bizzy, and have better things to do than worry if a routine, non-time sensitive order wasn't immediately inputted.

Although the appellate court’s most recent order was uploaded to the federal online docketing system, PACER, late on the afternoon of July 14, Judy was told by the U.S. District Court clerk’s office that the order was not in their possession as of last Tuesday. “With the Tenth Circuit Court immediately putting it on PACER, there was no way that what the district court was telling me was true,” Judy told us.

* * *

Judy did not receive his hard copy of the order until retrieving his mail on Thursday. He told The Post & Email that although an email address is required of plaintiffs utilizing the federal courts and that he has provided one, he has never received notifications regarding his case via that method.

* * *

In an interview on Saturday, The Post & Email asked Judy, “Now that the fee is paid, could the court simply reiterate its decision that the appeal is frivolous?” to which he responded:

Yes, they totally could. If they did that, I think it would be a very cruel standard. They could consider payment of the fee a self-imposed fine. But in the first paragraph in their ruling, they said, (paraphrased), “Because the district court ruled this is frivolous, we denied the IFP status.”

Judy wrote:I don’t think the judge is right or that the Tenth Circuit even paid attention to it. They included in their order “culpable” things such as “Mr. Judy has alleged…” mentioning Nancy Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s name, indicating that they’ve reviewed the case. But we don’t really know if they ever reviewed the case. We’ll never really know, but the clerks probably reviewed it and wrote the order, then the judges signed it.

We can assume now, because I have complied, that the justices no longer have a monetary excuse.

I really like the fact that in the last paragraph, they said, “If you don’t pay the fees, the case will be dismissed for a lack of prosecution.” That really stirred the pot for me, because there has been no time in nine years that I have failed to pursue my cases. They’re not saying that the evidence or the facts are frivolous; they’re saying it’s my fault for failing to prosecute.

I totally disagree with where they said I had not made a serious effort to present the facts. What we’re going to see now is that the justices will have to look more seriously at the facts of the case, which completely show that Nancy Pelosi disenfranchised the state of Hawaii by writing her own certificate of nomination for Obama. I think that’s really important to notice because without that happening, Obama would not have been elected. He would have started to fail in the state of Hawaii where he claims to be have been born.

It’s really important to the Democrat Party, of which I am a member, which supposedly elected him to be their nominee, that Pelosi disenfranchised the Democrat Party of Hawaii, which would not certify him as a qualified candidate.

* * *

[T]hat’s why Nancy Pelosi wrote her own; she disenfranchised the whole state of Hawaii. It comes down to whether a political party is able to disenfranchise whole states of the union. That’s an infringement on my rights to be able to run a fair and equal race.

When you’re in the Democrat Party, you have to function within their rules. That’s what this is; the Democrat Party is not the United States of America. The same thing happens with any corporation; when that corporation violates the rules or someone’s civil rights, that corporation is responsible in a court of law.

That’s why it is so important that I was a Democrat candidate in the race objecting to Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the office. I’ve never had a hearing on this, and the courts aren’t able to sweep it under the rug. We get into this question: Is the Democrat Party too big to fail? There was a story the other day that the party is $3.3 million in the hole. Since May, it’s gone downhill.

If the courts refuse to discipline the Democrat Party in its shenanigans against the Constitution of the United States, the party is the one that’s suffering and all the people in it. The Republicans are just pleased as punch to see that happen. I am the one trying to work from within the Democrat Party to at least try to get it back on a constitutional track.

Justices are all supposed to be neutral. If a presidential candidate does not have the right to challenge another presidential candidate’s qualifications, then absolutely nobody does. And that is basically trashing the Constitution and saying, “It doesn’t matter,” and if that doesn’t apply, then their own judicial appointments don’t matter because it all collapses. They’re not really judges; they don’t really have courts under the constitutional umbrella.

So we’re asking the justices to uphold what Congress has upheld: that nine times since 2000 there have been motions, resolutions, and suggestions in Congress to change the “natural born Citizen” clause, and they’ve all failed. That should send a message to the courts that it’s not open to interpretation, because the interpretations have been given to Congress, and they have been rejected.

That shows the courts that it’s not up to their interpretation. Congress, the will of the people, has said no, and if the courts say, “Yes, somebody is able to run or occupy the office without the constitutional requirements being met,” then they’re in violation of their judgeships, the Constitution, and the will of the people.

In my experience, most members of the Democratic Party don't refer to it as the "Democrat Party". I once again marvel at an example of fractal wrongness.

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Slartibartfast wrote:In my experience, most members of the Democratic Party don't refer to it as the "Democrat Party". I once again marvel at an example of fractal wrongness.

I believe that calling the organization the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party" is some sort of coded far-right insult, though I can't figure out why it's supposed to be insulting. You often hear that on talk radio, particularly of the more unhinged varieties.

If I'm right in the above recollection, it certainly suggests a strong likelihood that Judy isn't a "real" Democrat, but merely posed as one so that he could try to put together "standing" to file his particular birther lawsuit. I suspect that nobody here believed he was a sincere Democrat anyway, but this is a nugget of tangible proof.

Rush Limbaugh and the other AM talkers really pushed it through the '90s to the point where just about any non-Democrat calls it the "Democrat Party". It is one of the first Republican propaganda/framing devices that was wildly successful. Democrat brings to mind its rhyme "bureaucrat" instead of the ideals conjured by "Democratic". It is a juvenile slur that is, in my opinion, a direct precursor to "Crooked Hillary". Don't underestimate the damage that this mostly under-the-radar jibe has caused. Rush said it and people repeated it without even knowing they were reinforcing an anti-Democratic mental framework. Goebbels* would have been so proud.

While there has never been a "smoking gun" to prove that CRJ isn't a sincere Democrat (and he may have been for Democratic candidates in the past, even though he's from Utah), he has never shown even the slightest inclination towards any Democratic policy goals and certainly shared the birther view that everything President Obama did was wrong, evil, and directed at destroying our country.

* I find it fascinating that Goebbels is in the spell checker but Mengele isn't. I think it shows how much more insidious Goebbels was. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. At least my great aunt was able to use Mengele to trick a guard and save her mother's life. I don't think that one is going to get old any quicker than publishing with a Nobel Laureate.

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Slartibartfast wrote:In my experience, most members of the Democratic Party don't refer to it as the "Democrat Party". I once again marvel at an example of fractal wrongness.

I believe that calling the organization the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party" is some sort of coded far-right insult, though I can't figure out why it's supposed to be insulting. You often hear that on talk radio, particularly of the more unhinged varieties.

If I'm right in the above recollection, it certainly suggests a strong likelihood that Judy isn't a "real" Democrat, but merely posed as one so that he could try to put together "standing" to file his particular birther lawsuit. I suspect that nobody here believed he was a sincere Democrat anyway, but this is a nugget of tangible proof.

When you're ignorant and clueless, Judy, or just totally without integrity, Lush, you go with what you got. The only thing Judy is is a clueless liar and opportunist.

FWIW, I think that may partly be because Goebbels was pretty much the public face of the Nazis, where Mengele did his best to hide his light under a basket. He just wanted to get his kicks.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Slartibartfast wrote:In my experience, most members of the Democratic Party don't refer to it as the "Democrat Party". I once again marvel at an example of fractal wrongness.

I believe that calling the organization the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party" is some sort of coded far-right insult, though I can't figure out why it's supposed to be insulting.

It's because using a dull, thick noun for people is more demeaning-sounding than using an adjectival form. "Polish person" becomes "Polack." "Jewish people" becomes "Jews." "Chinks" vs. Chinese." "Wops" vs. "Italians." Even where the word isn't actually incorrect, or rude slang, the noun form still sounds demeaning.

It's why I always say "Friends of mine who are Jewish" rather than "Friends of mine who are Jews."

Psycho-linguistics is a strange field. Impressions and intent rather than just meanings.

Out of dozens, and perhaps more than 100, eligibility challenges to Obama’s election and occupation of the White House over the last nine years, Judy’s is the only remaining case and the sole one to be filed after Obama left office.

While no eligibility challenge has yet been heard by the courts on its merits, certain individuals who have ridiculed for years the idea that the Obama long-form birth certificate image is not genuine are nevertheless watching Judy’s case very closely.

Well: Duh; if this is the birfer swansong, why wouldn't the birfobsessed watch ("very closely")?

Ob.:

Judy wrote:My Motion for Reconsideration specifically named the criminal code and laid it out as plainly and simply as possible. If the courts don’t think when crimes are committed that there are any victims, then they’re not upholding a standard of law. You cannot forge a federal document or make a fake document; it should be obvious to everyone that you can’t usurp the office of the presidency that way. If they don’t bring this out, they’re basically asking for total anarchy.

* * *

Just because we haven’t had a successful hearing of a presidential candidate against a presidential candidate doesn’t mean that I’m not right or correct in my facts. For some to keep assuming that I haven’t stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, if I can’t challenge someone with the claim of the Constitution of not being a natural born Citizen, as I said, then nobody can. That just opens the executive branch of our government open to foreigners.

* * *

What we’re looking to see from the Tenth Circuit is if the District Court ruled unlawfully that my case is frivolous. What they said was, “If the money is paid, then we’ll undertake and look at the evidence to see if the District Court ruling was in error.” So they haven’t ruled that my case is frivolous. The law dictates that they have to rule that the case is frivolous if it’s IFP and the District Court has ruled that it’s frivolous. If the fee is paid, they will look at all of the facts and the evidence and undertake the decision as to whether the District Court ruled unlawfully that it was frivolous.

The appellate court has not said it’s frivolous; they said, “If you pay the fee, we’ll take a look and see if it’s frivolous.” We’re asking, “Was one single judge wrong?” and it’s been proven over and over that often, a judge is wrong. In my case, it’s pretty clear that he was.

Yet more of Judy's is, as they say, at the link.

Bonus:

Rondeau (to the White House) wrote:Good morning, this is a media inquiry regarding an active lawsuit challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility as well as alleging criminal activity given that his long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form were declared fraudulent by a criminal investigator working under former Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.

In December, the investigator, Mike Zullo, announced in a final press conference that two forensic analysts who are well-respected in their industries each conducted its own examination of the birth certificate image and agreed with Zullo’s findings that it cannot represent a genuine, paper document.

Is the White House following this case? Does the U.S. Justice Department have any intention of investigating Zullo’s conclusions?

Cody Robert Judy wrote:The appellate court has not said it’s frivolous; they said, “If you pay the fee, we’ll take a look and see if it’s frivolous.” We’re asking, “Was one single judge wrong?” and it’s been proven over and over that often, a judge is wrong. In my case, it’s pretty clear that he was.

Appellate Court Order opening paragraph wrote:Cody Robert Judy appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment and a later motion for reconsideration. Because Mr. Judy’s appeal is frivolous, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and decline to consider the issue further unless and until Mr. Judy pays the required fees

Cody's comprehension skills at its best. His statement is so blatantly stupid that I cannot believe it is anything else but him intentionally lying.

Edit: Like all birthers, he does not understand the difference between a civil suit and a criminal suit.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Judy wrote:A little bit of info. Called the Tenth Circuit Court Clerk Team 2. The Clerk said it’s been set for Review. Said he just couldn’t say how long, but noticed a couple of cases ahead of it. I asked if the Tenth Circuit had sessions or went on Summer Break like the SCOTUS. He said , “No, they don’t”. After a Case is set for Review it’s usually 2 to 3 weeks.

I think it'll be longer than 2-3 weeks for a decision. But if it isn't, then it means Judy & Friends spent $500 to buy a few weeks delaying the fail (a PREB shot).

Judy wrote:A little bit of info. Called the Tenth Circuit Court Clerk Team 2. The Clerk said it’s been set for Review. Said he just couldn’t say how long, but noticed a couple of cases ahead of it. I asked if the Tenth Circuit had sessions or went on Summer Break like the SCOTUS. He said , “No, they don’t”. After a Case is set for Review it’s usually 2 to 3 weeks.

I think it'll be longer than 2-3 weeks for a decision. But if it isn't, then it means Judy & Friends spent $500 to buy a few weeks delaying the fail (a PREB shot).

Since their recent order already said the appeal was frivolous, wouldn't that mean that their review probably consists of actually explaining, in writing for Cody to ignore and misread, how it is frivolous? Still, I would expect that to not be instantaneous.

Cody wrote:I asked if the Tenth Circuit had sessions or went on Summer Break like the SCOTUS. He said , “No, they don’t”.

Um... True or false, answer no.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

I think I understand Cody's game plan and why he would dump $500 on a case that the court will affirm as frivolous. It is about getting it to SCOTUS. I would not be surprised if the actual reason the clerks dumped his earlier attempt to file with the wrong justice was because he skipped the appeals court. He needs a ruling from the 10th. Dismissed for failure to prosecute will prevent him from getting it filled at the Supreme Court.

It's DOA at SCOTUS, but that's not a concern for Cody. His need for attention means he needs it on the docket.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Northland10 wrote:I think I understand Cody's game plan and why he would dump $500 on a case that the court will affirm as frivolous. It is about getting it to SCOTUS. I would not be surprised if the actual reason the clerks dumped his earlier attempt to file with the wrong justice was because he skipped the appeals court. He needs a ruling from the 10th. Dismissed for failure to prosecute will prevent him from getting it filled at the Supreme Court.

It's DOA at SCOTUS, but that's not a concern for Cody. His need for attention means he needs it on the docket.

How much does he have to grift to get to the Supreme Court? It must be more than $500.

Northland10 wrote:I think I understand Cody's game plan and why he would dump $500 on a case that the court will affirm as frivolous. It is about getting it to SCOTUS. I would not be surprised if the actual reason the clerks dumped his earlier attempt to file with the wrong justice was because he skipped the appeals court. He needs a ruling from the 10th. Dismissed for failure to prosecute will prevent him from getting it filled at the Supreme Court.

It's DOA at SCOTUS, but that's not a concern for Cody. His need for attention means he needs it on the docket.

How much does he have to grift to get to the Supreme Court? It must be more than $500.

He has been tossing around 5k for printing and such. That is on the low end of numbers I have heard.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Northland10 wrote:Since their recent order already said the appeal was frivolous, wouldn't that mean that their review probably consists of actually explaining, in writing for Cody to ignore and misread, how it is frivolous? Still, I would expect that to not be instantaneous.

"It depends." The level of analysis that goes into denying IFP status is different than the level required for disposing of a case. Having said that, some judges would be fine dumping that terse analysis into an unpublished disposition and telling Judy GTFOOMC. Other judges would want a more thorough analysis (when dumping this case).

Too also: there's work to be done ahead of Judy's case, and no compelling reason to move his case to the top of the pile.

I think I understand Cody's game plan and why he would dump $500 on a case that the court will affirm as frivolous. It is about getting it to SCOTUS. . . . Dismissed for failure to prosecute will prevent him from getting it filled at the Supreme Court.

Threading the line between what Judy believes and reality is difficult. You are probably correct that is what Judy believes. Because Judy's failure-to-prosecute dismissal would have been based on the "frivolous" finding, however, he could have taken that to SCOTUS. Either way, he could have argued the merits to show that his case wasn't frivolous. So it wasn't necessary for Judy to go this route, but he probably believes it is.

Too also: In some comment at the P&E, he said that he took "failure to prosecute" as an affront on his character.

Prosecuting an appeal (versus suffering a dismissal) does have one advantage: It affords Judy the opportunity to seek en banc review in the 10th. It will be folly, of course, but that is yet another opportunity for Judy to grandstand (and for Rondeau to "report" on the grandstanding).

I would not be surprised if the actual reason the clerks dumped his earlier attempt to file with the wrong justice was because he skipped the appeals court.

That is likely true, but Judy claims that the clerks are silently blowing him off. (Judy, of course, is a notoriously unreliable narrator.) It would be nice to have some clarity (like a letter from a clerk), but Judy isn't giving any of that up.

He has been tossing around 5k for printing and such. That is on the low end of numbers I have heard.

That's for printing. SCOTUS could, if (and this is a big if) Judy learns how to comply with simple directions, grant Judy IFP status. Then his costs would be much lower.

IIRC, I think a birther crowdsourced funding for a SCOTUS print job for something like $3k. Still not peanuts, though.

Judy wrote:If I were the 10th Circuit ruling on [another commenters'] comments ( he “seriously” forgets how or which name is correct) , the underlining factors he represents are:

1- No Presidential Candidate has a civil right or judicial remedy to challenge another’s Constitutional Civil Right protected ability to run a Fair Race under Constitutional Standards.

2- That responsibility to the Law is unaccountable and wholly incredible if it hasn’t happened before.

3- That because I ,as the 10th Circuit, didn’t first place (District Court) in front of the word (Friviolous) [every single time] in the Order that is how I feel about it, as well the Facts in the Case.

4- That when I do refer it as a District Court Ruling it is ignorable., and reflects wholly on my Ruling as the 10th Circuit.

5- That bringing Facts to a Case of implication and circumstances and motive against Law to the Bar of Justice do not necessarily represent a violation or punishable violation.

6- That Obama representing proof of his identification that is ascertained by lawful witness false/Forged/Fraudulent is not really a witness one can seriously bring to the Bar of Justice.

7- That Hawaii’s State Political Certification of a Candidate can be ignored and usurped by a Single Representative of the Political Party ie. Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

8- That Corporations forming to abett the illegal activity as a Cartel, if they are Elected Officials have no accountability to the Law, or Will of the People, because they are the Law over the People in a tyranny of pretended accountability to the Voter as a commodity.

9- That if your name is Cody Robert Judy and he brings all of this to the Bar of Justice, it’s so wholly incredible because the Reputations of all others supersedes his, and reputation of others, especially Elected Officials, is above the Law.

10- That if serious Review unmasked accountability the resulting implication far surpasses the ability of Justice to prevail, so it’s just better to hold tight to “injustice” and hope the people keep financing it.

These are serious implications represented by [another commenters] and his constant reflections in comments. I find them as the 10th Circuit friviolous and wholly incredible.

To have a mirror and have those reflected back at you is no laughing matter. Of course the Tenth Circuit could represent these diabolical standards if it chooses. The clarity of representation is brought to them to choose by Cody Robert Judy.

We The People will watch and see what they choose to represent.

When the Law becomes corrupt and criminal actions affecting many others is ignored by argument and belief in reputations and money, the integrity of law is lost and so the support of it will wonder.

Truth will stand and will be supported by those who haven’t lost their souls to the support of the Lie.

[some jerk*] wrote:Judy’s case it not difficult to understand. Judy wants $100 million from Obama, the DNC, and OFA. The district originally dismissed Judy’s case because he failed to adequately explain how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election. Judy’s explanation was so lacking that the district court labeled his attempt as frivolous. The 10th Circuit reviewed Judy’s case and agreed with the district court’s ruling, including the frivolous part. (Judy went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he was denied IFP status because he didn’t properly complete its IFP application, so his case was closed.)

Judy then went back to the district court and filed a motion for relief from judgment, citing Hawaii’s 2008 certification and the fact that Zullo held a press conference (Judy did not present to the court any of Zullo’s findings because Zullo has not released those findings to anyone). The district court again ruled Judy failed to adequately explain how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election; it also denied Judy’s motion for reconsideration.

The 10th Circuit, when reviewing Judy’s IFP application for his second appeal, concluded Judy’s appeal was frivolous, so it denied IFP on that basis.

42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, and the Clayton Act have never been used to seek money after an election; it was Judy’s burden to explain why they could be so used; and the courts have repeatedly said Judy’s attempt to do so was so lacking as to be frivolous. Given this track record, it is not difficult to conclude how the 10th Circuit will rule on Judy’s latest appeal.

Judy wrote:[some jerk] has presumed the SCOTUS IFP application was filled out incorrectly without proof.

We have actually now publicly seen an IFP Application filled out correctly and on record at Scripd and reported by The Post & Email, and seen the Tenth Circuit [deny the Motion to proceed] based on a single judge at the District Court’s label of [friviolous], which was mirrored at SCOTUS 14-9396.

Why has [some jerk] done this?

2-[some jerk] has not reported it is Congresses Act known as the Sherman Act & Clayton Act that stipulates the beginning of Fines against Corporations that form Cartels is 100M and or more as the grossness of the violation is comprehended.

Why has [some jerk] done this?

3- [some jerk] said “Judy did not present to the court any of Zullo’s findings ” , but I presented evidence in Video Form/Link for the Court of a Lawful Sheriff’s Posse Presentation showing the Facts and Evidence.

What is a Trial and Hearing for if it is not to establish the Expertise to the Courts satisfaction? A Grand Jury of Citizens could be authorized to witness this.

WHY would [some jerk] represent such a prejudice towards the evidence of a Lawful Law Enforcement Agency?

With just these three inaccuracies in one comment we can see [some jerk] is not a serious person to take advice or consideration from. His comment is thus wholly incredible and frivolous and certainly cannot be taken seriously.

In the following video just one year ago today, we see at the DNC National Convention a blatantly bias damage occurring with the active Candidates The result was corruption found displayed publically of the DNC’s Chair and the nomi ation of a corrupt nominee at the price born of my Campaigns marginalization.

This also happened in the 2008, and 2012 Elections at the behest of criminal acts perpetrated to marginalize my Campaign articulated very well in some 17 other Judicial Cases bearing similar facts and Evidence in several States of the Union.

It seems as a victim of this corruption and resultn crimes articulated plainly, civility has left the building in Civil Rights.

I think you are being overly generous when you say that Judy "failed to adequately explain" how Sherman or Clayton was in any way applicable, in fact his only real explanation was that he really really wanted them to apply and so the court should just follow his lead. As far as I know there is NO way either can be applied to an election, since that was neither their purpose nor scope, and even if it were Judy FAILED to even remotely address that applicability, and certainly presented no case law to show otherwise. Contrary to what Judy claims, the 10th reviewed his filing prior to declaring it frivolous and refusing his IFP.

While there is nothing conclusive that the USSC IFP was improperly submitted, the evidence of one properly submitted elsewhere does not prove otherwise.

At no point has Judy actually addressed the ACTUAL reasons his court case and appeal were rejected, but instead goes off on an irrelevant tangent that does not address the prior failings.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.